Its hard to accept Zackback's "faith" as in any way sincere when he's otherwise spouting off on these forums about being a 40-something misfit inclined to jog shirtless past girls schools & lust after pre-legal teens.

Ran by them but didn't lust after them. That's ok schwa you need an excuse to avoid the evidence presented. Happy you found a myth.
The message of the gospel of Christ in Matthew 28:19 is "Go". I and other believers MUST tell it. This is not a suggestion but a command.

I would like to share a personal experience with my Dave's friends about Holiday drinking and driving.

As you well know, some of us have been known to have had brushes with the authorities on our way home from an occasional social session over the years. A couple of nights ago, I was out for an evening with friends and had a couple of cocktails and shots and several beers.

Knowing full well I may have been slightly over the limit, I did something I've never done before - I took a cab home.

Sure enough, I passed a police road block but, since it was a cab, they waved it past. I arrived home safely without incident, which was a real surprise; as I have never driven a cab before and am not sure where I got it or what to do with it now that it's in my garage.

[quote="Zackback"] Even liberal scholar John A.T. Robinson puts the dating of Mark at 45-60, Matthew at 40-60 and Luke as early as 57. So your dates are in error.

Robinson was a Christian bishop. It is in the interest of Christians to place the gospels as early to the events as possible. There is a theological agenda to such early dating. The vast majority of scholars reject it. It is highly unlikely, for example, that John was written before the end of the 1st century.

Mark also depicts Christ as God. From Mark 14:61-64 (The New King James Version) But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

No Jew expected the messiah to be God! So calling someone the 'Christ' was not the same as saying he was Yahweh. The messiah was to be fully human person. Calling someone 'the son of God' was not uncommon or blasphemous in first century Judaism.

Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Again 'the Son of Man' is not the same as 'God'. Mark is not depicting Jesus here as God. Nor is it even evident that Jesus is depicted as referring to himself as 'the Son of Man'. Many scholars believe that such references, if uttered by Jesus, may have been to another entity. Only later, after his death, did his followers start conflating the two. But even if Jesus is depicted as referring to himself thusly, calling yourself the Son of Man is not the same as saying you are God. Surely you can grasp this. You are, after all, a university graduate.

Here's another one: Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men. And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? (Mark 2:3-8, The New King James Version).

Really? You can't think of another interpretation of this story other than it claims Jesus was God. You need to take off your theologically tinted glasses and accept the gospels for what they actually say, not what you want them to say..

1. There is a theological agenda for dating the gospels late as well. Vast majority of scholars? Cite some.
2. Mark 14:61-64 destroys your erroneous assertion that for Mark the Lord Jesus was a mere mortal.
3. You totally dodged my citation of Mark 2 where the Lord Jesus is said to know the hearts of these individuals and from the Old Testament we know that this attribute is reserved ONLY for God - thus proving that the Lord Jesus is God.
No wonder you refused to address this because it shatters your myth.
4. Related to Mark is the fact that even in John's gospel the Lord Jesus is the "I AM" (John 8:58 - chapter eight verse fifty-eight) which speaks of Him always existing (Exodus 3:14). That is, He claimed to be God by saying "ego eimi" (Greek) - and the reaction of the Jews proves they understood His claim.
He previously made a miraculous claim that by believing in Him a person would not experience spiritual "death" (John 8:52).

- When "ego eimi" is used by the Lord Jesus in the context of the miraculous (either by word or event) it proves He claimed to be God. How you can disagree with this is absurd.

1. There is a theological agenda for dating the gospels late as well. Vast majority of scholars? Cite some.

What 'theological agenda' could there be for dating the gospels later? I have nothing to gain or lose by accepting any dating of any gospel. Genuine scholars are interested only in finding the truth, not confirming biases. Again, if you are unaware of what scholars say about the dating of the gospels that's one more reason for you to get off Daves.

It says Jesus will "sit at the right hand of the Mighty One". It doesn't say he "is" the mighty one. Please tell me that you can understand the difference. Mark depicts Jesus as one "chosen" by Yahweh and "elevates him" above all others. It is not the same as Mark saying Jesus was Yahweh.

3. You totally dodged my citation of Mark 2 where the Lord Jesus is said to know the hearts of these individuals and from the Old Testament we know that this attribute is reserved ONLY for God - thus proving that the Lord Jesus is God.

It proves no such thing. Mark saying that Jesus "figured out" what people were saying and thinking about him doesn't make him God. I've often correctly guessed what people have thought about me (or a given topic). Does that make me Yahweh? Have you never been able to ascertain what people are on about without it having to be put into words. Your case here is extremely weak.

4. Related to Mark is the fact that even in John's gospel the Lord Jesus is the "I AM" (John 8:58 - chapter eight verse fifty-eight) which speaks of Him always existing (Exodus 3:14). That is, He claimed to be God by saying "ego eimi" (Greek) - and the reaction of the Jews proves they understood His claim.

By needing to cite John you are actually making my point. Well done. John definitely thought Jesus was God. Mark, on the other hand, emphatically did not. The two authors had very different ideas about who Jesus was, and this was reflected in their theology. Just as different denominations today have very different ideas about Jesus' nature (Mormons, Catholics, Quakers, evangelical Protestants, etc.) so did Christians of the first century. Scholars no longer talk about "early Christianity", but rather of "early Christianities." The first century saw an explosion of competing Christian sects. Even Paul warned his churches about competing sects "preaching a different gospel of Jesus Christ" from what he taught. Matthew's gospel (being very 'Jewish') insisted that Christians must continue to observe the Law. Again Paul disagreed. And he disagreed with Peter over several important issues. By having to pull quotations from John in a discussion about what 'Mark' believed you are revealing the weakness of your case. Each gospel must be read on its own merits. In other words, you can't put words into Mark's mouth. Just because John believed such and such about Jesus it is a fallacy to insist that Mark must have believed that too.[/i]

1. You affirm that "the vast majority of scholars" reject an early date for the gospels. When I ask for names you supply nothing. That kind of affirmation and subsequent nothing evidence may work well in some circles but for the thinking person it is a joke.
2. You were the one that claimed that Mark depicts Jesus as a "mere mortal". Sitting on the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven disproves this myth.
3. Concerning Mark 2 I previously wrote: When one takes what Mark records here along with other authors of the New Testament also affirming that Christ knows everyone's heart this too proves that Mark informed us that Christ is God for this knowledge was reserved for only God.
Christ knew everything about everyone's heart. This is something that you can not do. Only God can.
4. I'll repeat this again: When "ego eimi" is used by the Lord Jesus in the context of the miraculous (either by word or event) it proves He claimed to be God. How you can disagree with this is absurd.
This is not only found in John but also in Mark.
The Lord Jesus walked on water (a miraculous event) and His followers were in utter shock. One of the things the Lord Jesus said to them was "ego eimi" (Mark 6:50). Mark definitely believed that the Lord Jesus is God.

Last edited by Zackback on Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:28 pm; edited 2 times in total

Correct.
So by calling Him good he was calling Him God.
Asking why the man called Him good was not a denial that Christ was good. It's a question.
When some Koreans would look at me and say "An American" when I ask "Why do you call me an American"? I am not denying I am an American.